The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the bank to maintain accounts as per the account holder's instructions, the impermissibility of reversing decisions or recovering amounts without proper notice and opportunity of hearing, and the right of the petitioner to retain benefits received without fault.

( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent bank to reverse the debit of a sum of rs. 17,110/- made in the savings bank account of the petitioner in August, 2001, without any authority from the petitioner and to direct the respondent to refund the said amount alongwith interest thereon.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent, a public sector bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent bank') and was last working as an officer with the said bank, before she took voluntary retirement and was relieved from the employment of respondent bank on 31. 3. 2001. Prior to taking voluntary retirement, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent bank on 8. 12. 2000, for grant of privilege leave for a period of 12 days i. e. from 26. 12. 2000 to 6. 1. 2001. However, the request made for privilege leave was refused by the respondent bank by making the following observations:-

"mr. Pahwa and Mr. Datwani are on leave and Mrs. Indira going on training during this period. Leave may be regretted on a/c of exigencies and write to R. O. for accumulation"

( 3 ) AS per the leave rules of the respondent bank, privilege leave could be accumulated up to not more than 240 days except where leave had been applied for and it had been refused. As the privilege leave of the petitioner was refused by the respondent bank on account of exigencies, the respondent no. 2 branch of the bank in which the petitioner was working, applied to the Regional office for accumulation of leave beyond 240 days. The said request was, however rejected by the Regional Office vide its letter dated 29. 12. 2000. In the meantime, the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was processed and she was relieved from the employment of the respondent bank on 31. 3. 2001 and the matter rested there.

( 4 ) AFTER a gap of about eight months thereafter, one fine morning on 18. 8. 2001, the petitioner discovered that the respondent bank had recovered a sum of Rs. 17,110/- from her savings account maintained with it. On making enquiries, she was informed by the respondent bank that the said recovery had been made on the ground of adjustment of purported excess payment made to her on account of wrong calculation of privilege leave and encashment thereof at the time of granting voluntary retirement to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner made a representation to the bank requesting that her case be reconsidered and the amount deducted be credited to her account. However, repeated protests made by the petitioner did not elicit any response till 4/6. 2. 2003, on which date, the respondent bank rejected her representation on the ground that the action of the bank in recovering the excess payment on account of wrong calculation of privilege leave and encashment at the time of voluntary retirement of the petitioner was in order and that merely regretting grant of privilege leave does not amount to authorizing accumulation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent in debiting a sum of Rs. 17,110/- unilaterally in her savings bank account maintained with the respondent bank, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the respondent bank opposes the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not sought the equally efficacious alternative remedy as may be available to her, by filing a suit for claiming recovery. On merits, it is stated that credit of the accumulated leave was posted by the branch in which the petitioner was working, in January, 2001 inadvertently and that during the course of audit of records of the payments made to the voluntary retirees, it was found by the inspecting officer that 25 days of encashment of privilege leave was allowed to the petitioner in excess of her entitlement. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 17,110/- was debited